HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-9)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:52:47 -0500
There are 11 messages totalling 812 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Scottish Guilt? (2)
2. TROLL ALERT: do NOT Feed!! (was: List rules for ....) (2)
3. Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS (7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:53:08 -0500
From: KLZ <zklee@huskynet.com>
Subject: Re: Scottish Guilt?
Disclaimer: Yes, religion has come up in the discussion. Please
note that I (and I'm sure others who have addressed this topic)
are not promoting any religion or criticizing (except in fun, and
it's been people poking fun at themselves) any religion. One
size fits all. Three to a customer.
> Yep, Scottish Protestants have been known to envy the
> Catholics from time to time - at least they get to do
> penance and be forgiven by the priest! The Proddy's
> get told that it doesn't matter how we atone - we're
> damned anyway! (and some sects of Scottish faiths
> held that we were damned/saved from before our
> birth, from the Day of Creation)
>
While I've no intention of getting into theology, I'm also
wondering which is the chicken and which is the egg: Did
Scottish Prostestant theology come out of a penchant for Scottish
guilt, reflected in a rush to penance before the Reformation, or
did Scottish guilt come out of the theology?
I'm not sure what concept Jette's referring to in the "it doesn't
matter how we atone" sentence; presumably that concerns
"justification by faith alone", in the "faith vs. works" debate.
I don't believe Jette mentioned "eternal security", which I
believe is Calvinistic. Some Protestant denominations/sects hold
that a person can't be sure of salvation, so must continually
careful about falling from grace.
Any slant on the issue has its problems. While the Scottish
reformation may have led to or reflected Scottish guilt, the
German reformation led to or reflected suspicion of one's fellow
man - never knew if you were talking to someone who was saved at
the moment or not.
JMGLO; YMMV.
ZK
zklee@huskynet.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:42:34 -0400
From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: Scottish Guilt?
Oops...I accidentally sent this to Jette alone. Sorry about the dupilcate,
Jette!
Jette said:
>It's deep in our Celtic souls - goes back long before the Highland
>Clearances. It gives us that "dual personality" that will get Drunk
>as a Lord (reekin' fu'/stocious/miraculous/stoatin'/ three sheets to
>the wind - an English friend once pointed out that the Scots had
>more ways to describe a good drunk session than any other
>nationality he knew of - and he was a sailor so he knew a few!)
>one day, and the next be more puritan than the passengers on
>the Mayflower! We *brood*, we get drunk, we feel very sorry
>for ourselves - and for others, we sympathise with them, we
>*love* them all - then we sober up and...... well, you know
>what a hangover feels like? A Scottish hangover is like that
>- but more! <g>
Ah...see...now I wouldn't call any of the above "guilt"--or guilt-inducing
(and maybe that's the/my problem here...differing definitions). I see that
duality in a lot of people--myself included, sometimes.
>Whoo boy! You haven't known many Scottish Protestants
>then, have you?
LOL. No. :-)
>
>"SINNER!!!! THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS!!! Hellfire
>and Damnation, All Women are Harlots, etc etc etc"
Now THIS is what I'm talking about. This is the kind of guilt I was
exposed to as a child in the faith I was raised in. :-)
Back to the whole differering definitions thing:
Raised in the faith that I was (she said, dutifully trying to keep religion
out of things...), I grew up feeling like no matter what I did, how I
attoned, or what I thought, I was doomed to forever be cursed with Original
Sin. Women were the reason we (humanity) were expelled from the garden and
are thus inherantly sinful. Everything that I wanted, did, acted upon, or
didn't act upon was seen as sinful. This is Guilt with a capital G. :-) It
manifested in my life (and in the lives of others I know of that faith) as
a beholden-ness to authority figures....be they Church, Maternal, Familial,
or Heirarchical. If my cousin wasn't confortable on the floor of my dorm
room--even if she refused my bed when I offered it-- it was somehow my
fault. *Everything* was somehow my fault. That's what I would name
<Liser's Ex-Faith> Guilt.
Self-blame for things that might or might not be under your control. This
is why I said that I don't find the Scots (that I know, anyway) to be a
particularly guilty lot. What I got from your paragraph above was that
Scots are a broody lot (which didn't come as a shock). I don't think
brooding has to equate with guilt (though it certainly can). Do you?
I know it was Elaine's phrase, not yours, Jette, but does "Scottish Guilt"
have a similar defition to <Liser's Ex-Faith> Guilt? That feeling of the
world's problems being somehow related to you, personally....that if you
were better, things in general would be better? Do Scots, in general, even
feel that way?
Elaine said:
>The other thing to remember about Scots is that duty and honour
>come very high in the scheme of things for them. Both Connor and Duncan
>had that. Sometimes looking after those can seem like being guilt ridden.
Right.
I think Duncan carries both the burden of guilt (for those he has killed,
for those he hasn't saved, etc) AND the burden of duty (to protect, to
always do the right thing, to set a good example). Is that the cocktail of
emotion you were referring to as Scottish Guilt?
Liser
--
LC Krakowka
liser@lightlink.com
"Where does Homer fit in?"
-Col. Jack O'Neill, Stargate: SG1: "Beneath the Surface"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:43:43 EST
From: MBianch447@aol.com
Subject: TROLL ALERT: do NOT Feed!! (was: List rules for ....)
In a message dated 5/01/01 6:38:45 AM AUS Eastern Daylight Time,
geiger@maui.net writes:
<< I don't know about that last bit, but one way this list differs from others
is that everyone is limited to 5 posts per day--you posted at least 7
messages yesterday (under this name--I don't know or care about your alleged
multiple personas). Read your list rules, that you received upon
subscribing, & follow them please.
Nina
geiger@maui.net >>
Been trolling other HL places for several months.......changes names a
lot............do NOT feed
Maroussia
"c'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien a dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
Michel Audiard
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:51:49 -0400
From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
>Spoilers:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Sandy:
>Exactly. So why would an immie make himself vulnerable like that? Even if
>we go with the "sanctuary is a deep dark secret" scenario, I still think
>immies just aren't that trusting.
But...if they THINK it's Holy Ground (assuming that there isn't something
that allows them to know for sure--like a HG Buzz or the like), then they
would THINK they were safe there--even though, in reality, they're not.
>
>Take Duncan for example. He knows about the watchers, understands them and
>their true purpose (let's forget about the renegades for a moment) and sees
>the importance of it. But would he trust them in such a way? I doubt it,
>and I doubt that the others would either.
Duncan knows WAY more about the Watchers than your average immortal,
though. In the case of random immortals seeking entrance to the Sanctuary,
ignorance of the organization would be bliss. In fact, what's to say that
those immies even knew what a "Watcher" was? Maybe they thought the
Sanctuary was tended by Monks...as befitting a place on HG. There are
enough legends in the immortal world that I don't find it a stretch for
them to think there might be a special order of monks that has taken on the
duty of guarding The Sanctuary.
Liser
(who is over her 5 post limit for the day)
--
LC Krakowka
liser@lightlink.com
"Where does Homer fit in?"
-Col. Jack O'Neill, Stargate: SG1: "Beneath the Surface"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:13:35 -0800
From: Kintoun <kintoun@home.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Sandy Fields wrote:
> At 01:06 AM 01/04/01, Kintoun wrote:
> > > >
> > > >S
> > > >P
> > > >O
> > > >I
> > > >L
> > > >E
> > > >R
> > > >
> > > >S
> > > >P
> > > >A
> > > >C
> > > >E
> >I belive that the preliminary script matters to a certain degree. Several
> >people were confused as to why Cracker Bob, Winston, Carlos, Manny, and
> >especially Jin Ke followed Kell after watching the movie. The script dealt
> >with this topic quite thoroughly though.
>
> Maybe it does. But how does that help us discuss the movie? Has everyone
> read this script? I sure haven't. If Kell was lightning fast and/or
> couldn't be harmed by bullets, but this was only brought out in the script
> but not in the movie, how are we supposed to use this bit of information
> when discussing things that happened in the movie? And how many scripts
> were there? Which one are we supposed to use in our discussions? The
> original draft? The 5th one? Do we first take a poll to find out how many
> of us have read each draft before we decide which script can be used in
> discussions?
Every source of info helps to better understand a movie. If there were an
interview with Bruce Payne in which he commented on his character's speed and
reflexes, why wouldn't you trust it? I'm quite surprised by how few people
recognize Kell's abilities. We've seen swords touching the necks of immortals
many times before but the victor always spared the opponent in those cases. In
Endgame, Jacob showed no fear whatsoever at two enemies putting him in that
position. He even purposefully allowed Connor's katana to cut him. Kell was
lightning fast in both the preliminary script and the movie. Unlike Connor,
Carlos didn't back down to Kell's intimidation. It only takes a split second to
follow through the motion to decapitate a foe but Jacob was more than fast
enough.
There's less proof regarding his imperviousness to bullets although the early
script does provide a perfect example on how he revives from extremely serious
injury within the blink of an eye. I think you're exagerrating the number of
these scripts out on the web. There's only one as far as I know. I especially
recommend fans who dislike the possibility of killing on holy ground to read
it. One scene in particular features Faith talking to Jacob and he threatens to
kill her but she knows he won't do it in the church.
Kintoun
"I'm afraid even the cloak of fog won't help you overcome a sizeable
disadvantage. It's always good to see two fellow clansmen banded together in a
common cause but I hope you haven't sunk to the level of a simultaneous
ambush."
-Jacob Kell
>
> -- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:12:21 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
At 06:38 PM 01/04/01, Kintoun wrote:
> > Spoilers:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>I don't think you paid enough attention at the beginning of the movie
<snip>
I saw all of that and I paid very close attention to it --- 4 times. I
understood what was going on. It was all right out there in the open for
the viewer to see and hear. It didn't really call for paying close attention.
But the actions in that scene have nothing to do with the question of why
an immortal would let himself be put into that suspended animation state
and leave himself vulnerable to attack.
>The idea that a bad mortal Watcher could enter the Sanctuary and kill
>numerous monks with shotguns is rather absurd.
Why? We're talking about immortals here. I wouldn't put anything past a
bad immie. Why would this be so absurd or unthinkable? If sanctuary is
there, and someone knows about it (a few watchers... a few immortals), then
it's easy pickings for a bad immortal, or a bunch of bad immortals, or a
bunch of bad mortals for that matter.
>There's no denying the fact that the monks at the Sanctuary could handle
>taking out those 4 immortals.
Totally irrelevant. They shot a few immortals and another one popped
up. Proof that their security measures weren't enough, and all the more
reason why it doesn't make sense that immortals would trust their lives to
such a setup. What if there had been 20 bad guys? Would the monks have
been able to handle all of them? And even if they could have shot them
all, could they have beheaded them all before anyone woke up?
>The movie made it extremely clear that the Watchers had more than enough
>time to cut all their heads off. Kell, on the other hand, was too fast for
>them to hit once let alone sufficient times to get him to stay down. I'm
>quite surprised that so many people believe any immortal can be killed
>with a gun.
No one believes an immortal can be killed with a gun. Where did you get
that from?
I have a feeling you and I are talking about two totally different
things. You've mentioned Kell's supposed speed a couple of times now, and
you seem to be saying that this incredible speed that you feel Kell had was
*the* thing that allowed the bad immies to slaughter everyone in the
sanctuary. You see him as being special or different in some way, to the
point where under *normal* circumstances (i.e. no super-speeding immie in
the bunch) it would have been impossible for the monks at the sanctuary to
be taken down, thereby making it quite reasonable for an immortal to go to
this sanctuary and submit himself to the suspended animation thing to get
out of the game and still be alive.
I disagree with this for a very simple reason. I didn't see anything
special about Kell. He was just another bad immie with several immie
henchmen working with/for him. I think any group of immies could have done
this, and it wouldn't take any super-human speed to accomplish it. All it
would take is enough people (mortals or immortals) working together to do it.
If I've misinterpreted what you're saying, please clarify.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:06:14 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: TROLL ALERT: do NOT Feed!! (was: List rules for ....)
At 06:43 PM 01/04/01, MBianch447@aol.com wrote:
>Been trolling other HL places for several months.......changes names a
>lot............do NOT feed
We know. Many of us were in the other places. The entire list is on alert
already, and Debbie is watching the discussion closely with her whip in hand.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:31:14 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
At 05:13 PM 01/04/01, Kintoun wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >S
> > > > >P
> > > > >O
> > > > >I
> > > > >L
> > > > >E
> > > > >R
> > > > >
> > > > >S
> > > > >P
> > > > >A
> > > > >C
> > > > >E
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Every source of info helps to better understand a movie.
I guess that's so for some people. All I need is to watch the movie. If I
understand it, fine. If I don't, then either I'm a little dense that day
or somebody goofed in the writing/editing/producing/acting/whatever.
>If there were an interview with Bruce Payne in which he commented on his
>character's speed and reflexes, why wouldn't you trust it?
Actors are the last people I'd trust in discussing the actions of
characters. Plus, if I didn't see any speed or super-duper reflexes in the
movie, then what the actor says about these things doesn't really matter to
my perception of the movie. Lastly, anything about a character that is
relevant to the storyline should be *in* the movie. I shouldn't have to
dig up a script or read an interview in order to figure out the actions or
motivations a character in a movie.
This kind of information is a lot of fun and very useful when
we're discussing behind-the-scenes stuff, but not much help when we're
discussing the actions, motivations, comments, etc. of the characters in
the movie or tv show.
>I think you're exagerrating the number of these scripts out on the web.
Probably. I'm not interested in the scripts. I just threw a number out
there because whether there was one script or a hundred doesn't matter much
when we're talking about the movie... the one that was shown in the theaters.
>There's only one as far as I know. I especially recommend fans who dislike
>the possibility of killing on holy ground to read it.
I don't really think people dislike the idea. I think most simply feel
that it was treated badly in the film.
>One scene in particular features Faith talking to Jacob and he threatens to
>kill her but she knows he won't do it in the church.
I've never seen that scene, so it certainly can't influence my take on the
movie.
-- Sandy (over my limit too)(glad to see some action around here)(hoping it
doesn't deteriorate)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:26:32 EST
From: Susan Kirt <SUQKRT@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/4/01 4:00:06 PM, diamonique@earthlink.net writes:
>>
>>This is a matter of opinion. IMHO, anyone who thought Connor should die
>is
>>not a true HL fan.
>
>IMHO, anyone who thought Connor shouldn't have died in Endgame is not a
>true HL fan. All true HL fans recognize Duncan MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod
>as the one true Highlander.
>
>Long Live The Highlander!!!
>
>-- Sandy
>
>
except for and interest in the Highlander Universe why must fandom be
defined?
Suz
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:27:54 -0800
From: Kintoun <kintoun@home.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Sandy Fields wrote:
> At 06:38 PM 01/04/01, Kintoun wrote:
>
> > > Spoilers:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >I don't think you paid enough attention at the beginning of the movie
>
> <snip>
>
> I saw all of that and I paid very close attention to it --- 4 times. I
> understood what was going on. It was all right out there in the open for
> the viewer to see and hear. It didn't really call for paying close attention.
>
> But the actions in that scene have nothing to do with the question of why
> an immortal would let himself be put into that suspended animation state
> and leave himself vulnerable to attack.
Coincidentally, I went to see Highlander: Endgame in the theatre 4 times as well.
I believe that close attention is absolutely required for the beginning of the
movie though. Kell initially hides for cover when he makes his presence known to
the Watchers at the Sanctuary and therefore certain fans believe that he was just
lucky. Seconds later, he strikes that very same Watcher with his sword from
behind. The question is how did he manage to do that? I say that's very good proof
of his remarkable speed. I doubt that attacks on Sanctuary locations are uncommon.
When Winston removed his helmet and said "You people are extremely difficult to
find.", that first Watcher didn't seem surprised that they discovered the place. I
bet that they successfully protected the immortals in suspended animation
countless times before Kell and his crew arrived.
> >The idea that a bad mortal Watcher could enter the Sanctuary and kill
> >numerous monks with shotguns is rather absurd.
>
> Why? We're talking about immortals here. I wouldn't put anything past a
> bad immie. Why would this be so absurd or unthinkable? If sanctuary is
> there, and someone knows about it (a few watchers... a few immortals), then
> it's easy pickings for a bad immortal, or a bunch of bad immortals, or a
> bunch of bad mortals for that matter.
Note that I said bad *mortal* as in somebody like James Horton. I'm sure you agree
with me that one mortal stands zero chance at killing dozens of Watcher monks. Of
course, a renegade monk may be able to infiltrate one of these Sanctuaries and
kill the helpless immortals but his Watcher buddies would surely kill him after he
got away with it.
> >There's no denying the fact that the monks at the Sanctuary could handle
> >taking out those 4 immortals.
>
> Totally irrelevant. They shot a few immortals and another one popped
> up. Proof that their security measures weren't enough, and all the more
> reason why it doesn't make sense that immortals would trust their lives to
> such a setup. What if there had been 20 bad guys? Would the monks have
> been able to handle all of them? And even if they could have shot them
> all, could they have beheaded them all before anyone woke up?
This is highly relevant. How many immortal gangs with more than 4 members did we
know about prior to Endgame? The only possible example that pops to mind is the
group that wanted Liam dead in Highlander: The Raven. The concept of *twenty*
immortals banding together stretches the limits of believability in my opinion.
I'm not debating the fact that a worse case situation would result in the immies
in suspended animation losing their heads but the Watcher monks appeared to be
prepared for practically any circumstance. They took care of 4 really dangerous
evil immortals. As the 'asshole' Watcher pointed out, Kell was unbeatable.
However, you want to interpret the ending, I don't think Duncan proved himself
better in any way to Jacob.
> >The movie made it extremely clear that the Watchers had more than enough
> >time to cut all their heads off. Kell, on the other hand, was too fast for
> >them to hit once let alone sufficient times to get him to stay down. I'm
> >quite surprised that so many people believe any immortal can be killed
> >with a gun.
>
> No one believes an immortal can be killed with a gun. Where did you get
> that from?
Oh, give me a break. Don't you think I already know that? Some if not most
immortals can be killed with a gun. You shoot them, they temporarily die, and you
quickly chop the heads off. I never said immortals can be killed only with a gun.
> I have a feeling you and I are talking about two totally different
> things. You've mentioned Kell's supposed speed a couple of times now, and
> you seem to be saying that this incredible speed that you feel Kell had was
> *the* thing that allowed the bad immies to slaughter everyone in the
> sanctuary. You see him as being special or different in some way, to the
> point where under *normal* circumstances (i.e. no super-speeding immie in
> the bunch) it would have been impossible for the monks at the sanctuary to
> be taken down, thereby making it quite reasonable for an immortal to go to
> this sanctuary and submit himself to the suspended animation thing to get
> out of the game and still be alive.
Kell's speed is canon. Maybe it's not as grand as I'm describing it to be but the
actual movie shows it on numerous occassions. Speed is a huge factor in swordplay.
How else do you think Jacob placed Carlos' blade to his throat and yet Carlos was
the one decapitated? That's a split second action. You've got to acknowledge it as
beyond the realm of human potential.
> I disagree with this for a very simple reason. I didn't see anything
> special about Kell. He was just another bad immie with several immie
> henchmen working with/for him. I think any group of immies could have done
> this, and it wouldn't take any super-human speed to accomplish it. All it
> would take is enough people (mortals or immortals) working together to do it.
>
> If I've misinterpreted what you're saying, please clarify.
Maybe the loft scene at MacLeod & Ellenstein Antiques was too dark to notice the
precise manner in which Kell defended himself but there was going to be another
scene where the same move fails for Connor. Up until Endgame, it looked as though
you'd always be at an opponent's mercy when he places a katana to your throat but
Kell was skilled enough to turn the tables on a foe under practically any
situation. If Jacob grabbing a sword that's already slicing it's way into his skin
isn't enough evidence to show that he's fast, what would it take to convince you?
Kintoun
"What was that?"-Jacob Kell
"Full gainer with a quarter twist. Degree of difficulty--not very."-Carlos
> -- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:50:14 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
> > > > > >
> > > > > >S
> > > > > >P
> > > > > >O
> > > > > >I
> > > > > >L
> > > > > >E
> > > > > >R
> > > > > >
> > > > > >S
> > > > > >P
> > > > > >A
> > > > > >C
> > > > > >E
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Kintoun--
>I'm quite surprised by how few people recognize Kell's abilities.
You shouldn't be. There's precious little in the _movie_ that shows he was
anything special at all. That's part of the problem the movie had;
characters _said_ Kell was a big deal, but we never saw any proof of it.
(Not that I _wanted_ to see the crappy special effects they teased us w/ in
the 3rd trailer.) Joe, knowing DM had defeated the Horsemen & Ahriman, said
Kell was out of DM's league just because he'd killed a lot of Immies--makes
no sense to me. Specifically, there was nothing to indicate _why_ Kell's
flock followed him.
Kintoun--
>I'm quite surprised
>that so many people believe any immortal can be killed with a gun. If
that's the
>case, it's just a matter of time until renegade Watchers achieve their
>objective.
Again w/ the surprise. But here I really don't know what you are talking
about. Of course an Immie can be "killed" w/ a gun; it just isn't permanent
_unless_ someone cuts his head off prior to revival. And that _does_ work;
Xavier had a nice racket doing just that along w/ Horton's renegade Watchers
in HL:TS' Unholy Alliance I & II. And, yes, that's a possibility when _any_
mortal (renegade Watcher or not) knows about Immies--that a gun or other
surprise attack can give the mortal time to BH the Immie. That it didn't
work for the Watcher monks in the movie was just due to Kell's surprising
them; he _was_ dressed as a monk himself & so was able to sneak up & kill
them before they got to the BHg part as to the posse.
As for you putting so much importance on length of time various Immies took
to revive, that seems to vary in the movie simply according to dramatic
requirements--just as it did in previous movies & in HL:TS.
Kintoun--
>>>Kell initially hides for cover when he makes his presence known to
the Watchers at the Sanctuary and therefore certain fans believe that he was
just
lucky. Seconds later, he strikes that very same Watcher with his sword from
behind. The question is how did he manage to do that? I say that's very good
proof
of his remarkable speed.>>>
How about sloppy editing? I see nothing in the movie to indicate Kell has
any speed advantage at all over his various opponents. Frankly, they way
you describe it in your various alleged examples makes the movie sound even
sillier than it was.
Kintoun--
> >Every source of info helps to better understand a movie.
I disagree. A movie is the # of minutes it played across the big screen (&
in the case of HL:EG, that # was pathetically small).
All the rest is like hearsay in a trial--generally inadmissable & basically
irrelevant. I might be interested in what AP or BP or the director or one
of the lesser actors has to say, but it doen't change what I think of the
movie itself. Nothing can change what TPTB (whoever the heck they really
were as to this flick) decided to send to the theaters. Either that was
good or it wasn't. I HATE it, but in my opinion HL:EG wasn't a good movie.
All the other stuff--interviews, scripts, workprint, etc.--only goes to help
me figure out _why_ that is. Some days that's interesting, others it's just
depressing.
The fact is that HL:EG is a hopelessly jumbled mess, as to characterization,
canon, plot, etc. We can talk endlessly about why this character did that
or what this event was supposed to mean as to HL canon. But after _many_
viewings of the movie & the workprint & many readings of the script & all
the other "stuff" floating around about the movie, I've sadly come to feel
it _cannot_ all be reconciled (& certainly it cannot be reconciled w/
HL:TS). The script was a mess, the workprint took some wrong turns & was
incomplete, & the movie as released was further convoluted due to poor
production planning, bad luck w/ illness & weather while filming, muddled
aims among those in charge, idiotically rushed editing--& probably a hundred
other disasters.
The upcoming release of the DVD & then of (possibly) a director's cut will
just confuse the matter even more. Already we can't discuss the movie w/o
bringing in the script & the workprint. What's going to happen after some
of us have one or 2 _more_ versions of this monster in hand?
Nina (totally pissed that what was supposed to be a "gift to the fans"
turned out to be a nightmare)
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-9)
*************************************************************